About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN2 4
CSPAN 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 11
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
wants upmake sure nobody is beating ?p on his u.n. ambassador? >> this is the problem. bain, we should probably go back to the dictionary. she's not a nominee. dictiona she's a nominee kind of in waiting. this is the problem the president can't defend her as a nominee for a job he hasn't hasn't nominated her for. this is kind of a loose shirttail out there. she's going around the hill, talking to senators. meetings aren't going well. in n part because senators, if nothing else, are reserving their leverage for if she actually does become the t onnee, they'll have a process, hearings. they don't want to prejudge that process. pr pro process hasn't begun. so the president has to say these limited things. when he says only a limited thing about her success at the u.n., he is not defending her on t theuestion that's before him. i the white house is in a tricky spot here. of course, then hanging overall of this is republicans anger hey are note still not getting the questions answered on enghazi and feel that the onesrs they're getting are as 's whatal as the original ones in the heard. you
've heard, seen perhaps more cyberattacks that are maybe something like an armed attack under the u.n. charter. conceivably i suppose even an act of war, though that is a debatable point as to whether we've seen anything like that to date. i have put a few terms of the things that are really. computer network attack, as we've been talking up, computer network exploitation is basically efforts to infiltrate a computer network for any other purpose i just described. so maybe some sort of armed attack. maybe it's for criminal activities and you're hoping to be surreptitious about what you can. maybe it's her espionage and then you're hoping to be surreptitious. cite a few examples of how these concepts and relate to one another. and how come if you are in the business of computer network defense, you are trying to defend networks at your company but if you're looking at this from a policy perspective for the united states, for example, how vulnerable is the united states, how vulnerable is our critical infrastructure and nuclear power plants, things like that. you quickly see that an inf
intelligence says he was responsible for watering down -- editing, the talking points that u.n. embassador susan rice used when she went on five sunday talk shows, the famous picture of it, to talk about benghazi but you say a few days before the -- his office said they were responsible for editorring talking points, in a closed door hearing, james clapper told you and other senators he didn't know who was responsible. where does this investigation stand and how do you get to the bottom of it? >> well, it's like any other -- it's assumed the proportions of any other major scandal. there are many layers onion. all kinds of questions raised. i saw the director of national intelligence say he didn't know where these talking points were edited. and now he's saying he did. we'll be interested how that transpired. the biggest aspect of this whole thing is it's got to be looked into, why there was such a failure on the part of the administration in light of events the two attacks on our embassy, the assassination attempt on the british embassador, they closed their -- all this long train of event
several examples of massive united nations lead interventions where the u.n. moved in and established a presence in iraq and afghanistan. it was u.s. and nato lead. in the middle east and north africa particularly in these countries we are discussing something new is happening. in some respects the international community learning to do things differently. we are not going back to what we have done in the last 20 years. we are going to do it in a different way and has an international community we are learning what that process is and if you are on the ground you can see it. a lot of people -- there's a hesitancy about this intervention and this involvement that is quite telling and wasn't there in the past. >> thank you. >> i would like to know -- i am abigail woodward and i would like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced and i would like to know if the muslim brotherhood has seen this debate impediment to that and how the constitutions are including them. >> let's start with the most significant case, constitutional issues and the role of the muslim brotherhoo
commitment. all of the foreign aid is spent right here in america un-american jobs. that is when the requirements. we need to gather up our allies and protect the people who serve in our state department we can secure them, they shouldn't be there. >> moderator: i'm going to go forward, but what you think should be the basic guiding principles, speaking a bit more probably? berg: if you are referring to dollars spent, or in general, our foreign policy, america is the leader of the world. we need to look where there are opportunities to create democracies come and we need to be supportive of those. you know, one of the been challenges that we have is iran. iran is, you know, getting close to having nuclear capabilities. from a foreign policy standpoint, we have to support the democracy that we have with israel there and will be can to prevent them from having nuclear capabilities. the next step is to move nuclear bombs very easily around the world. as it relates to our foreign policy, we need to try and again, make sure that americans interests are kept first and we need to be clo
ambassador to the u.n. and a fox news contributor. you say today our adversaries are breathing a sigh of relief, why? >> i think they have sized up president obama during his first term. they've seen he's a weak, inch attentive leader. they are not going to wait around for us to get our economic house in order. i think almost certainly during his second term that the pace and the scope of challenges that the united states will face will accelerate. jenna: why? >> you've named some of them. because they see a president who doesn't really concern himself with foreign affairs, who doesn't see, for example, iran's continuing progress toward nuclear weapons as the threat that it is. you have president putin who has already congratulated president obama on his re-election, undoubtedly thinking of the famous conversation with former president, russian president medevev about how flexible president obama will be after the re-election. now it's come to pass. why shouldn't they be happy. jenna: let's think about what you would say to the president -- you're laughing. you can't take him off the
for conflict. and i would look to the state department to carry this into the u.n. so that we get to the international forum particularly if it continues to escalate. member to come to frame that a declaratory policy for the nations that are not -- that have the servers that may not be partisan bidding so that it's clear, and then to start to think of other diplomatic actions that could potentially be taken to cut off the escalation of this activity or its attacks on us or on a larger group etc. >> but i don't want to take off the table actions on the diplomatic actions because i think that we have exhausted many of the potential diplomatic actions. and so we need to think about what are ways to send a strong signal to the leadership in x land and other places by some other actions in putting perhaps covert action. >> quick question, so far the u.s. government has said nothing publicly about who is behind the attacks. there's speculation in the media based on the leaks of incredible sources that the u.s. government has said nothing publicly. what is your decision as to whether or
we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- for romney, obama's weakness overseas, his inability to stand up to this rising asian power. the united states and china are so intertwined economically that is a very hard to start any kind of a fight between t
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)